About slleb

slleb · 08-07-2003

Need some guidance on how best to configure the following scenario;Establishing VPN tunnel between my company and a business partner. They have one network on their side 192.168.53.x and we have many on our side, but none are in conflict with this a...

slleb · 12-09-2003

Could you also send it to me?Thanks,Jeff

slleb · 08-13-2003

Actually the NAT precendence is due to the order not the ID or use of access-list. When you do a "show nat" the partner network needs to be first and then the Internet.Makes sense, everything is order driven on the PIX. Soon they will have to updat...

slleb · 08-13-2003

Success! I didn't end up needing to disable the interface. I was testing primarily using PING and since I didn't see a translation I assumed that was the problem since PIX translates first then looks for permissions. It turns out that I didn't hav...

slleb · 08-12-2003

I had tried changing the order of the NAT id without luck. I'm going to try removing the 10.250.80.x segment all together and see if I can get any insight into the problem.If I don't have a DMZ segment on the 10.250.80.x network will I still be able...

slleb · 08-11-2003

I was able to upgrade to 6.3(2), but the ideas above didn't work for me. Once set-up I turned on "debug icmp trace" and tried to ping from an inside machine to the partner network. It basically gave me an echo-request from the original inside addre...

Member Since	‎07-29-2003 05:54 PM
Date Last Visited	‎08-18-2017 03:51 AM
Posts	6

User Statistics

User Activity

PIX VPN w/ NAT

Re: SNA over the Internet

Re: PIX VPN w/ NAT

Re: PIX VPN w/ NAT

Re: PIX VPN w/ NAT

Re: PIX VPN w/ NAT